a 4 Psalm 51:4

a 4 Psalm 51:4

¹⁷⁷ “Justification makes no actual changes in us; it is a declaration by God concerning us”(Lloyd-Jones, Romans 3:20–4:25, p. 55).

¹⁷⁸ Among the rabbis obedience to all the law was important, as Minear points out (p. 93). He cites the saying: “a proselyte who takes upon himself all the commandments of the Law with a single exception is not to be admitted.”

¹⁷⁹ See, e.g., R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I (London, 1952), pp. 273–74.

¹⁸⁰ Bultmann brings this out: “by his thesis that righteousness is a present reality Paul, nevertheless, does not rob it of its forensic-eschatological meaning. The paradoxicality of his assertion is this: God already pronounces his eschatological verdict (over the man of faith) in the present; the eschatological event is already present reality, or, rather, is beginning in the present” (ibid., p. 276). He sees the difference between the Jews and Paul in that “what for the Jew is a matter of hope is for Paul a present reality—or, better, is also a present reality” (ibid., p. 279).

¹⁸¹ This point is sometimes overlooked. Thus Bowen sees justification as similar to the action of a judge who sentenced an old friend to a heavy fine, then paid the fine himself. But this is not justification; the man is guilty and he is sentenced accordingly. The justified sinner is one whose sin has been dealt with so that it no longer exists. He is “Not guilty”. The illustration is defective in another way, for in our jurisdictions there are some crimes for which fines are prescribed and it does not matter who pays them. But where imprisonment or the death penalty are involved, it does matter who pays. Such a penalty must be paid by the offender, and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

¹⁸² See further my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London, 1965), chs. VIII and IX; V. Taylor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation (London, 1946), pp. 29–69; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London, 1950), pp. 51–78; E. C. Blackman, “Justification”, IDB, II, pp. 1027–30; J. I. Packer, “Justification”, IBD, II, pp. 841–844; G. Quell and G. Schrenk, TDNT, II, pp. 164–225; J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge, 1972); Hodge, pp. 81–86; Morison, pp. 161–99; Gavin Reid, ed., The Great Acquittal (London, 1980).

Leenhardt Franz J. Leenhardt: The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1961)

Knox The Interpreter’s Bible, IX, introduction and exegesis by John Knox (Nashville, 1978)

Hodge Charles Hodge: A Commentary on Romans (London, 1972 repr. of 1864 edn.)

¹⁸³ Cranfield, p. 147. He later looks at ten interpretations of the passage and favors “not their faith itself but their conduct as the expression of their faith” (p. 151). Cf. Black, who says that people are saved by faith alone, but “in the life that follows ‘works’, as the spontaneous expression of the life of faith (the ‘fruit of the spirit’), are no less an integral part of the life which will one day be judged by God—only they are no longer simply the result of an external conformity to a legal code” (p. 55).

¹⁸⁴ Cf. Käsemann, “the difficulties in exposition are largely connected with a failure to pay due regard to the power-character even of the righteousness of God received as a gift, since this involves a radical separation of gift and Giver, and of Giver and Judge” (p. 58). He cites Gal. 5:5 to show that “faith itself waits for its definitive justification from the eschatological future.” Cf. also Althaus, “Alongside ‘by faith alone’, there stands with equal emphasis ‘by works alone’ ” (p. 24).

¹⁸⁵ Klyne R. Snodgrass has emphasized the importance of taking Paul’s teaching on judgment with full seriousness; it is an important topic (NTS, 32 [1986], pp. 72–93).

^a 4 Psalm 51:4

¹ It is usually said that Paul uses the method of the diatribe, so common in the philosophers, wherein a series of imaginary objections is raised and answers given to forward the argument. But David R. Hall rejects this view (“Romans 3:1–8 Reconsidered”, NTS, 29 [1983], pp. 183–97). He points out that in the diatribe the objection is put briefly and replied to in detail, whereas in Rom. 3:1–8 the objections are given in detail and the replies are brief. Again, Paul elsewhere does use the introductory formulas common in the diatribe such as ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τίς (1 Cor. 15:35) and ἐρεῖς οὖν (Rom. 9:19; 11:19), but here he has τί ἐροῦμεν, “a formula which introduces an internal debate rather than an external objection” (p. 183). While Paul is influenced by his debate with the Jews, he is basically concerned with objections within himself. S. K. Stowers has shown how the passage could be construed as a diatribe (CBQ, 46 [1984], pp. 707–22; see especially p. 715), though without considering Hall’s objections. If we are to see the passage as a diatribe, Stowers’s version is surely the way to take it. But Hall leaves a large question over this whole approach.

² Cf. Gore, “What he is arguing against is the claim of the Jews that God was bound to their race.”

³ NIV has a Jew, but the Greek is τοῦ Ἰουδαίου. This is a “collective (generic) singular”, a “not unclassical usage” (BDF 139).

⁴ περισσός means that which surrounds a thing and thus is not part of it; it is over and above. From this it is but a step to advantage (cf. Eccl. 6:11, LXX). ὠφέλεια is sometimes used in the sense “assistance” or “help”, and thus “profit” or “value” (ὠφελεῖ is used of circumcision in 2:25). Neither noun is common in the New Testament (twice each).

⁵ Paul is fond of πολύς (82 times, 20 in Romans). He does not hesitate to use the neuter adverbially (cf. 2 Cor. 8:22) or the plural (15:22; 16:6), but he prefers πολλῷ (5:9, 10, etc.). Godet takes πολύ here and an adjective agreeing with περισσόν.

⁶ τρόπος is connected with τρέπω, “to turn”, and means “way”, “manner”. The expression here indicates a many-sided advantage. Cranfield points out that it does not mean “of every sort”. The Jew had the many-sided advantage that Paul proceeds to name, but he does not face the question of whether the Gentile might have advantages of other kinds.

Nygren Anders Nygren: Commentary on Romans (London, 1952)

⁷ Barrett finds points of theological importance here: “If the Old Testament is to be believed God did choose the Jews out of all mankind and did bestow special privileges upon them. To reduce them therefore to the level of other nations is either to accuse the Old Testament of falsehood, or to accuse God of failing to carry out his plans.” He sees the Jew’s advantage as “a terrible one. He is first in election, first in judgement; instructed out of the law, judged by means of the law.” These are valuable comments, but we should not overlook the fact that the one thing Paul mentions here is τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ. Knox finds Paul’s answer “certainly not very convincing”, but this is to underestimate the importance of Old Testament revelation. Smart has a better grasp of the argument when he says that the Jew “is to be the custodian of the treasure beyond all other treasures, the knowledge of God which alone makes a truly human life possible.” Scott has the helpful comment, “by their possession of the Law the Jews have an advantage over the heathen, much as the educated man has a better chance in life than the one who has never been at school.” Whatever use the Jew (or the educated man) makes of it, the advantage is real.

⁸ πρῶτον μέν looks for a following ἔπειτα δέ with a list like the one in 9:4–5. But, as in 1:8 (where see note) and 1 Cor. 11:18, first is not followed up. KJV takes the adverb to mean “chiefly” (so also Calvin), but NIV is surely correct.

RSV The Revised Standard Version

⁹ τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ. λόγια is unlikely to be the neuter plural of λόγιος (which means “learned” in its only New Testament occurrence, Acts 18:24). Many see it as a diminutive of λόγος, though the normal diminutive is λογίδιον. SH think this last is a strengthened form, developed when λόγιον acquired the special sense (arising from its meaning “a brief utterance) of “an inspired utterance”, “an oracle”. A. Debrunner denies that the word is a diminutive, but gives the meaning “λόγος ‘(longer) narrative’—λόγιον ‘(shorter) individual utterance’ ” (TDNT, IV, p. 137 n.1). G. Kittel says that the sense “oracular saying” disappears in LXX where the term “has become a vehicle for the biblical conception of revelation by Word” (ibid., p. 138). In LXX it apparently differs little from λόγος. Godet also denies that the word is a diminutive and takes it to mean “a divine saying”. Whether the word is a diminutive or not is not clear, but the meaning is plain enough; it is a divine utterance. T. W. Manson has a summary of its use in the Old and New Testaments, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Apologists (Studies in the Gospels and Epistles [Manchester, 1962], pp. 87–104).

¹⁰ Murray emphasizes this: “For Paul the written Word is God’s speech, and God’s speech is conceived of as existing in the form of a ‘trust’ to Israel; divine oracles have fixed and abiding form”; “above all else … the Jew’s privilege as an abiding possession … was his entrustment with the Word of God.”

Brown John Brown: Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, 1981 repr. of 1857 edn.)

Robinson John A. T. Robinson: Wrestling with Romans (London, 1979)

Boylan Patrick Boylan: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Dublin, 1947)

Barclay William Barclay: The Letter to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1957)

Calvin John Calvin: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh, 1961)

Lagrange M.-J. Lagrange: Saint Paul Épitre aux Romains (Paris, 1922)

Murray John Murray: The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1960 and 1965)

¹¹ Cf. Barth, the oracles “are the comprehensible signs of the incomprehensible truth that, though the world is incapable of redemption, yet there is redemption for the world.”

¹² Paul does not say that all Jews were without faith but that τίνες were (cf. 1 Cor. 10:7; Heb. 3:16). It is something like the Old Testament idea of the remnant; there were always some who were faithful, even though many were not. Nestle-Aland divide the text with a question after γάρ, but NIV, RSV, etc. take all the words up to τίνες in the first question. Not much depends on the way we resolve the point, for the meaning is much the same.

¹³ This is one of the situations where it is not easy to render γάρ in English. The word is “oft. in questions, where the English idiom leaves the word untransl…. Esp. τίς γάρ; τί γάρ... transitional, what, then, is the situation?” (BAGD 1f). But Haldane sees it as important here, and gives the meaning: “ ‘For what if some have not believed;’ that is, ‘the unbelief of some is no objection to my doctrine.’ ” εἰ introduces a condition accepted as factual, “if, as is the case….”

¹⁴ The verb is ἀπιστέω, here only in Romans. Bultmann says that the sense “to be untrustworthy” is not attested in the classics where the verb means “to be distrustful”, “unbelieving”. In the New Testament the meaning is usually “not to believe” (TDNT, VI, pp. 178, 205; he thinks the meaning here, however, is “to be unfaithful”).

Moffatt James Moffatt: The New Testament: A New Translation

Bruce F. F. Bruce: The Letter of Paul to the Romans² (Leicester, 1985)

Lightfoot J. B. Lightfoot: Notes on Epistles of St Paul (London, 1904)

NASB The New American Standard Bible

Morison James Morison: A Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London, 1866)

Cranfield C. E. B. Cranfield: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, I [1975]; II [1979])

¹⁵ ἀπιστία. It occurs five times in Paul (four in Romans), and 11 times in the New Testament. In these other passages it seems always to mean “unbelief”.

¹⁶ J. Gwyn Griffiths argues for this meaning (ET, LIII [1941–42], p. 118).

¹⁷ χαταργέω is a difficult word to translate. It occurs 27 times in the New Testament (25 in Paul) and is translated in 17 different ways in KJV. RV got rid of eight of these, but introduced three new renderings of its own, and the process has been repeated with other translations. I now have a list of more than 80 ways in which reputable versions have rendered it in English. It may help to consider the way the word is formed. We start with ἔργον, “work”. With the alpha-privative prefix and the verbal ending we get ἀργέω, “to be idle”, “to do no work”. The perfective prefix χατά brings us to “to do absolutely no work” or, causatively, “to make to do absolutely no work”. Thus the verb has meanings like “nullify”, “render null and void”, “make inoperative”. Here NIV’s nullify brings out the meaning. Morison says, “The word rather means to make inefficient, than to make without effect. It negatives the idea of agency or operation, rather than the idea of result or effect.” But this seems to narrow it unduly. G. Delling sees its religious meaning as “to make completely inoperative”, “to put out of use” (TDNT, I, p. 453).

¹⁸ The question is introduced by μή, which shows that a negative answer is envisaged.

¹⁹ With but one exception (Luke 20:16) μὴ γένοιτο occurs exclusively in Paul in the New Testament (Romans, ten times; Galatians, three times; 1 Corinthians, once). Burton maintains that in 12 of its 14 occurrences in Paul “it expresses the apostle’s abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be (falsely) drawn from his argument” (MT, 177). It is a strongly emphatic expression with the meaning “Let it not be!” It is rendered in English in a variety of ways: “Never!” “Not at all!” “Certainly not!” “Of course not!” etc.

²⁰ γινέσθω. The verb expresses the idea of transition from one state of being to another, of “becoming”. But God cannot pass from being untrue to being true. Paul is speaking of what comes to be seen, what is apparent. Cf. Lightfoot, “‘be found,’ i.e. become, relatively to our apprehension”. The verb also comes to mean “to be”, which is the justification for NIV. Some hold that the imperative is here equivalent to an indicative with a meaning like “God is true”. Lightfoot seems to give the right sense.

²¹ The adversative δέ marks the contrast.

LXX The Septuagint

²² The quotation is introduced with ὅπως ἄν, which indicates purpose. In the classics it is often followed by the future indicative, but in the New Testament the subjunctive is more common; here we have both. The Hebrew text of Ps. 51:4 conveys the meaning “be clear (or justified) when you judge”, but Paul, as he usually does, follows LXX (where it is 50:6). There is not the great deal of difference between the two which is sometimes alleged; either way God is seen to be just, whether as Judge (Hebrew text) or as litigant (LXX).

²³ διχαιόω is followed by ἐν in Acts 13:39 (where τούτῳ refers to Christ or Christ’s forgiveness), Rom. 5:9 (Christ’s blood), 1 Cor. 4:4 (where τούτῳ refers to Paul’s unawareness of anything against himself), 1 Cor. 6:11 (the name of Christ), Gal. 2:17 (Christ), 3:11 (not the law), 5:4 (law again), 1 Tim. 3:16 (spirit or Spirit). This is a mixed bag, but basically in this construction ἐν has a meaning like “by means of”. This suits the present context well.

NEB The New English Bible

²⁴ Vaughan finds here “the only clear example in Scripture of the classical use of νιχᾶν as a forensic expression, to gain a cause” (so AS, BAGD 1b).

²⁵ ἐν τῷ χρίνεσθαι. The construction ἐν τῷ + infinitive is sometimes said to be not classical, but Moulton notes it six times in Thucydides, 26 times in Plato, and 16 times in Xenophon (M, I, p. 215). BDF 404 say, “Attic does not use ἐν τῷ in this way”. Robertson points out that Moulton minimized “the fact that in the O.T. ἐν τῷ occurs 455 times (45 in the Apocrypha) and that it exactly translates the Hebrew בְּ” (p. 1072). He goes on to notice that Moulton qualified his position in the second edition of his book, at the place where he said that the construction is “possible but unidiomatic Greek” (ibid.). See also M, II, p. 451. Hebrew employs בְּ with the infinitive (see Gesenius-Kautzsch 114, 2), which LXX renders ἐν τῷ + infinitive. This doubtless accounts for its frequency in the New Testament. It is mostly temporal, and means “while” (cf. BDF 404). Here, of course, it is LXX.

Denney James Denney: "St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans" in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, II (Grand Rapids, 1979 repr.)

Käsemann Ernst Käsemann: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980)

²⁶ Käsemann appears to concede this with “Paul already knows the outcome” (ibid.). A little later he says, “The justification of the ungodly means God’s victory over the world that strives against him. It is to be seen from the perspective of the forensic situation which plays so great a role in our text. Always and everywhere it implies that mankind is presented as deceived by illusion regarding itself and God, that God’s truth is manifested in his word, and that God’s right prevails over rebels who have to give him the right” (p. 82). There are, of course, important truths here, but Käsemann appears to be confusing legal and military metaphors. Justification is a forensic term; it means getting the verdict when brought to trial. It does not mean getting a victory over rebels.

²⁷ εἰ δέ.

²⁸ RSV has “the justice of God”; Turner sees this as “more like a possessive gen.: the justice which God dispenses” (M, III, p. 211).

²⁹ Thus he can class himself with those who will be dead when Christ returns (1 Cor. 6:14) as well as with those who will be alive (1 Thess. 4:17). He does not know when the parousia will come, but he is one with believers whether he will be alive or dead then. He also classes himself with those who provoke the Lord with their eating and drinking in idols’ temples (1 Cor. 10:22); it is Paul’s way of saying “we sinners” rather than “you sinners” (though on occasion he can say this too).

³⁰ συνίστημι means “stand together” and thus may mean “commend”, “recommend”, the bringing together of persons, as when Paul commends Phoebe (16:1). Deissmann notices the use of this verb in letters of commendation (LAE, p. 235 and n. 2). Or it may mean “show”, “prove” (as in 5:8). The verb is Pauline in 14 of its 16 New Testament occurrences.

³¹ τί ἐροῦμεν is found seven times in Romans and nowhere else in the New Testament. It may be used to introduce a conclusion Paul rejects (6:1) or one that he accepts (9:30).

³² μή introduces a question looking for a negative reply. Paul asks the question, but does not think there is anything in the suggestion. Hall makes this part of his argument that Paul is not using the method of diatribe (NTS, 29, p. 190). An objector would not speak in this way.

³³ The verb is ἐπιφέρω. It is not only unusual in such a connection; it is found again only in Jude 9 in the whole New Testament.

³⁴ MM and LSJ both cite its use for inflicting πληγᾶς. It is perhaps worth noticing that the use in Jude is for bringing an accusation, which is a personal activity, not the impersonal activity Dodd envisages here.

³⁵ D. Daube rejects the contention of SBk, III, p. 136 that this is not a technical expression (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [London, 1956], pp. 394–400). He says, “The phrase is an apology for a bold statement which, without such an apology, might be considered near-blasphemous—be it because it is too anthropomorphic or be it because it sounds otherwise lacking in reverence for God or an established religious idea” (ibid., p. 394).

³⁶ There is just one word in the Greek, ἐπεί (= ἐπί + εἰ). The term can mean “because” or “since”, and it is used elliptically here: “for (if it were different), for otherwise” (BAGD, who note that the usage is classical). The word is common in Hebrews (nine times), and Paul uses it ten times (three in Romans).

³⁷ BDF 385(1) cite this passage to illustrate the point that “The future indicative is often used in the NT where in Attic a potential optative could have been used”. χρινεῖ could be accented as a present and some take it so, but the reference seems rather to final judgment.

GNB Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)

³⁸ There is a textual problem at the opening of the verse. εἰ δέ is read by Nestle-Aland with the support of א A 81 etc.; εἰ γάρ is supported by B D G and many others. The former reading makes this verse parallel to v. 5, a repetition of what has just been denied in μὴ γένοιτο; the latter makes v. 7 an explanation of the objection in v. 6. Metzger says that the majority of his committee accepted εἰ δέ, thinking that the argument “requires a parallel between verses 5 and 7”; they saw εἰ γάρ “as a rather inept scribal substitution, perhaps of Western origin.” We should probably accept εἰ δέ (cf. RSV, “But if…”). εἰ γάρ is behind KJV, LB, etc.

³⁹ ψεῦσμα means “lie”, but BAGD note its use in the sense “lying, untruthfulness, undependability”. Something of the sort is necessary here since there is no reason for thinking that Paul has in mind any one lie. Cf. Wesley, “my lie, that is, practice contrary to truth”. It is not a common word, being found here only in the New Testament. For “truth” see Additional Note B and cf. v. 4. ἐν here will denote the means or instrument.

⁴⁰ περισσεύω is a thoroughly Pauline word (26 times out of 39 in the New Testament; three times in Romans). It derives from περί, “around”; since what is around is beyond, this readily leads to the thought of abundance (cf. the note on περισσός, v. 1).

⁴¹ For δόξα see the note on 2:7. It is an important word for Paul and here points to the majesty, splendor, and sublimity of God. εἰς here will denote result; the abounding of God’s truth results in his glory.

⁴² This is one of only two examples of χἀγώ in Romans. It puts emphasis on the subject, I of all people. Moule cites this as an example of Paul’s “displacement of a χαί which ought logically to cohere closely with the verb”, and he gives the meaning as “not why am I also… ? but why am I actually judged… ?” (IBNTG, p. 167). Barrett is similar.

⁴³ ἁμαρτωλός is found often in Luke (18 times), but Paul uses it only eight times, four being in Romans.

⁴⁴ χαχά is plural and may (along with ἀγαθά) indicate habitual practice, though the aorist of the verb tells against this. χαχός is especially characteristic of this letter, where it occurs 15 times, nearly one third of the New Testament total of 50 (Paul has it 11 times in his other letters).

Barrett C. K. Barrett: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London,1957)

⁴⁵ The rabbis sometimes came close to this. In a comment on Ps. 51:4 the Talmud records a curious reason for David’s sin: “David pleaded before the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘Thou knowest full well that had I wished to suppress my lust, I could have done so, but, thought I, let them (the people) not say, “The servant triumphed against his Master” ’” (Sanh. 107a). That is to say, David sinned in order that God might not be shown to be in the wrong.

⁴⁶ It is not easy to see the force of the μή which introduces the statement. The parenthetical clause (χαθώς) may somehow be mixed up with indirect discourse: “perhaps from μὴ λέγομεν (λέγωμεν) ὅτι ‘do we say perhaps (should we perhaps say)’ (with ὅτι recitativum), or from τί (7) οὐ ποιοῦμεν or μὴ ποιήσωμεν ‘we surely do not want to do evil?’ (G vg Or etc. thus with omission of ὅτι, smoothing the construction)” (BDF 427[4]).

⁴⁷ For βλασφημέω, “blaspheme”, see the note on 2:24.

⁴⁸ The word is ἔνδιχος, only in Heb. 2:2 elsewhere in the New Testament. It signifies what accords with right and thus is “just” (RSV).

JB The Jerusalem Bible

⁴⁹ Godet holds that ὧν must have τινές as its antecedent. There may be a touch of irony in Paul’s argument: the Jews who accused him of in effect doing away with God’s law were in effect doing the same thing themselves, for they held that they would be saved despite their own law-breaking (cf. Hall, NTS, 29, pp. 194–95).

LB The Living Bible

⁵⁰ Cf. Kertelge: “The infidelity of the Jews is being established in a legal action brought by God…. In the legal proceedings the Jew represents not just his own people but all mankind. In the face of God’s righteousness all mankind’s efforts simply demonstrate their own deep-rooted unrighteousness.”

^a 9 Or worse

^b 12 Psalms 14:1–3; 53:1–3; Eccles. 7:20

^c 13 Psalm 5:9

^d 13 Psalm 140:3

^e 14 Psalm 10:7

^f 17 Isaiah 59:7, 8

^g 18 Psalm 36:1

⁵¹ τί οὖν; This makes a little pause in the argument for reflection. It should be read as a distinct question and not taken up into the following (see n. 53^† below). προχατέχομεν περισσόν is read by D* G Ψ 104 etc., but most agree that this substitutes an easier question for προεχόμεθα; οὐ πάντως, which should be read (the reverse alteration is most improbable).

⁵² προεχόμεθα. The verb occurs only here in the New Testament.

⁵³ An object could be found if we ran the two questions together: τί οὖν προεχόμεθα; But the question, “What then do we have as a defence?” cannot be answered with “Altogether not”; it needs “Nothing (οὐδέν)” or the like. Morison argues for the middle sense, and holds that an example of this use is found in Herodotus ii.42. He holds that, whether this be accepted or not, “there can be no reasonable room for doubting that the word is used absolutely by the Apostle Paul in the passage before us, and that it means, Do we put forth pleas in self-defence?” O’Neill takes the verb as middle and incorporates it with the previous question to give the meaning “What, then, do we put up as a defence?” He sees “Not completely” as a “nonsensical remark” and ascribes it to a glossator. Perhaps we should notice here the reading προεχώμεθα (A L), which “looks like an attempted improvement by someone who understood the verb in its proper middle sense and so felt a deliberative question was required” (Cranfield). It is evidence for an early understanding of the verb as a middle.

RV The Revised Version

SH William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)

LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon, comp. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1940)

Grammatical Nigel Turner: Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1965)

⁵⁴ We see something of the difficulty when we notice that H. Moule has “we Christians” in his volume in The Expositor’s Bible and “probably ‘we Jews’ ” in CBSC. “We Christians” is understood by Hendriksen, Lenski (who makes the point that Christians as well as Jews had the Word), and others. There seems no reason to take the expression as “we Gentiles”; our choice is between “we Jews” and “we Christians”.

⁵⁵ Turner, Grammatical Insights, pp. 106–7.

⁵⁶ Thus BDF say, “NT authors in general preserve well the distinction between middle and passive. The middle is occasionally used, however, where an active is expected” (BDF 316). This is quoted approvingly by Robertson (p. 805), and by Moulton who says “the NT writers were perfectly capable of preserving the distinction” (M, I, p. 158). Turner holds that “the New Testament abounds in instances where a middle voice is used when there is an active form of the verb available” (Grammatical Insights, p. 106). But this is not quite the same as saying that they often use the middle in the sense of the active and that is the point at issue. Moule sees the distinction between active and middle as “blurred by the N.T. period” (IBNTG, p. 24).

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, a translation by Geoffrey W. Bromiley of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Grand Rapids, 1964–76)

⁵⁷ Barrett finds this suggestion “attractive”, but thinks there would probably have been an emphatic ἡμεῖς or other “clear pointer” if so. But can we demand such consistency of a writer like Paul? In any case, there is something grammatically strange here.

⁵⁸ Ronald Knox translates, “Well then, has either side the advantage?” This at least ingeniously preserves some of the possible shades of meaning. Barth takes the verb as middle and comments: “ ‘Do we excuse ourselves’ when we perceive that the faithfulness of God persists even in the apostasy of men?… Men are not deprived of one security, in order that they may immediately discover for themselves another.” BAGD put this view in these terms: “if the ‘we’ in 9a must of necessity be the same as in 9b, i.e. Paul himself, he is still dealing w. the opponents whom he has in mind in vss. 7, 8, and he asks ironically: am I protecting myself?, am I making excuses? He is able to answer this question w. a flat ‘no’, since his explanation in vs. 9b is no less clear and decisive than his earlier statements” (sub προέχω 2). Lenski rejects this, but holds that the verb is middle: “Paul is asking: ‘Have we Christians in our own persons an advantage in having the Word (the objective advantage the Jews, of course, also had)?” He sees the answer, “Not in every way.” F. C. Synge also holds that Paul is the “we” and that the verb is middle voice. Paul is then asking, “ ‘Am I setting (one group) ahead of the other, am I setting Jew before Gentile or Gentile before Jew?’ And he answers his own question, ‘No I am not, emphatically not, for I have already insisted (προῃτιασάμεθα) that both groups are equally under sin’ ” (ET, LXXXI [1969–70], p. 351).

⁵⁹ In an important discussion of the passage N. A. Dahl argues for the middle with the meaning “What, then, do we hold before us as a defence?” (M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson, eds., Paul and Paulinism [London, 1982], pp. 184–204). He holds that to ask the question is to answer it (we humans “have nothing that we can plead as a defence or an excuse before God” [p. 195]), and he sees οὐ πάντως as an early gloss.

CGT Cambridge Greek Testament

⁶⁰ οὐ πάντως has a meaning like “not altogether” (cf. 1 Cor. 5:10). BAGD give the meaning as “not at all” and cite 1 Cor. 16:12; but in that passage the order is πάντως οὐ, which is not the same. BDF get rid of the difficulty by resolving the textual problem into τί οὖν προχατέχομεν; πάντως ᾐτιασάμεθα Ἰουδαίους (433 [2]). This is a much easier text and for that reason probably wrong (it is not easy to see how such a straightforward text would be corrupted into the one we have). But MM cite an example of the expression from the papyri giving a complete negative, and this seems the way we should take it here. Turner holds that the words “must be reversed or taken separately: no! absolutely or certainly not (not in all cases is scarcely possible)” (M, III, p. 287). He thinks that the unusual expression may have occurred through the exigencies of dictation (M, IV, p. 86).

⁶¹ KJV renders “proved”, but it is the laying of a charge (αἰτία) beforehand that προαιτιάομαι signifies. The verb is found here only in the New Testament; it does not occur in LXX, nor is it cited from the classics. Did Paul coin it?

⁶² The expression is ὑφʼ ἁμαρτίαν; cf. 7:14, “sold under sin”. BAGD say that ὑπό + accusative may be used “of power, rule, sovereignty, command, etc. under” and cite Luke 7:8a etc. as well as this passage. The construction resembles that in which Paul speaks of being under law or under grace (6:14, 15, etc.). Paul has ὑπό in 74 of its 217 occurrences, 12 being in Romans.

⁶³ Cf. A. Edersheim, “A favourite method was that which derived its name from the stringing together of pearls (Charaz), when a preacher, having quoted a passage or section from the Pentateuch, strung on to it another and like-sounding, or really similar, from the Prophets and the Hagiographa” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I [London, 1890], p. 449).

⁶⁴ The rabbis could reach this truth. When R. Eliezer asked R. Akiba, “Akiba, have I neglected anything of the whole Torah?” Akiba replied, “Thou, O Master, hast taught us, For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not” (Sanh. 101a; the words in italics are a quotation from Eccl. 7:20). H. J. Schoeps takes this to mean that R. Eliezer was “a rabbinic exponent of the Pauline doctrine of the general sinfulness of mankind”, but sees this as exceptional (Paul [London, 1961], p. 185).

⁶⁵ The participle is usually accented συνίων (from συνίω), though some read it as συνιῶν (from συνιέω). But BAGD reject this, and Moulton sees it as “faulty accentuation” (M, I, p. 202).

⁶⁶ This is Paul’s one use of the verb ἐχζητέω. Some idea of diligence seems to be involved in the ἐχ. But these people are not in earnest. They do not want to find God.

⁶⁷ ἐχχλίνω.

⁶⁸ ἅμα denotes the coincidence of two actions in time or in place (this is the one instance in the New Testament of the latter use). Paul uses it six times in all, but only here in Romans.

⁶⁹ The verb ἀχρειόω is derived from alpha- privative + χρή, “use”, and thus means “make useless”, or “unprofitable”. A number of commentators draw attention to its use for milk that has gone sour. Barclay comments: “Human nature without Christ is a soured and useless thing.” The word for good is χρηστότης, which is an admirable foil to ἠχρειώθησαν since it goes back ultimately to χράομαι (also derived from χρή), and signifies basically “what is useful”. It is, of course, used here in an ethical sense, but it has added force in that it so firmly opposes what is said in the previous expression.

⁷⁰ ἕως can be used “of degree and measure, denoting the upper limit” (BAGD). Thus in Matt. 18:21–22 ἕως ἑπτάχις means “as many as seven times”. Here the upper limit is one, and even that is not attained! BAGD cite a papyrus οὐ... ἕως ἑνὸς νομίσματος, “not even a single coin”.

⁷¹ See M, III, pp. 23–24 for this use of the singular. “Contrary to normal Greek and Latin practice, the NT sometimes follows the Aram. and Heb. preference for a distributive sing. Something belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the sing.” (cf. the singular of “heart” in 1:21 and “body” in 8:23).

⁷² Cf. Haldane, “What proceeds out of their mouth is infected and putrid; and as the exhalation from a sepulchre proves the corruption within, so it is with the corrupt conversation of sinners.” LB reads, “Their talk is foul and filthy like the stench from an open grave”. Cf. the reference to λόγος σαπρός (Eph. 4:29), where the adjective means “decayed, rotten” (BAGD).

Luther Martin Luther: Lectures on Romans (Library of Christian Classics; London, 1961)

⁷³ λάρυγξ originally meant the larynx, but came to mean the throat, the gullet. It is used here only in the New Testament.

⁷⁴ ἐδολιοῦσαν. Note the imperfect in -οσαν (cf. John 15:22, 24).

⁷⁵ BAGD show that the word (ἰός) was in wide use and that it might denote literal poison, or metal corrosion; or it might be used metaphorically.

⁷⁶ ἀσπίς is used here only in the New Testament. BAGD define it as “asp, Egyptian cobra gener. of venomous snakes”.

⁷⁷ στόμα occurs 78 times in the New Testament (13 in Paul, of which six are in Romans), but χεῖλος only seven times (two in Paul, one in Romans).

⁷⁸ ὀξύς is found seven times in Revelation, but here only in the rest of the New Testament. In that book the meaning is “sharp”, referring to a sword or sickle, but here it is “speedy”.

⁷⁹ ἐχχέω is the older form, but some parts of the verb are from the later Hellenistic form ἐχχύν(ν)ω. The aorist is ἐξέχεα (see M, III, p. 215), which yields the unusual infinitive we have here.

⁸⁰ “The word pachad denotes terror inspired by God, not reverence for God…. Transgression persuades the wicked man that there is no need for him to dread God’s judgments” (A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms [Cambridge, 1910], p. 184).

⁸¹ Derek Kidner, Psalms 1–72 (London, 1973), p. 146. Kidner proceeds, “This is the culminating symptom of sin in Romans 3:18, a passage which teaches us to see this portrait as that of Man (but for the grace of God) rather than of an abnormally wicked type. All men as fallen have these characteristics, latent or developed.” C. A. and E. G. Briggs comment, “He ignores God, can no longer see Him as present” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, I [Edinburgh, 1907], p. 316).

⁸² This is Paul’s second use of οἴδαμεν δέ (see the note on 2:2); he likes to appeal to what is common knowledge. He uses the verb οἶδα predominantly to appeal to well-known facts.

⁸³ ὅσα. This word may be qualified by πάντα (Matt. 7:12 etc.), but even without it the absolute use may mean “all those who” or “everything that” (BAGD).

⁸⁴ There seems no real difference between λέγει and λαλεῖ. Paul uses λέγω 100 times, 34 being in Romans, and λαλέω 60 times, three in Romans. The latter verb is thus rare in this epistle, but it is not easy to assign a reason other than that of style. Paul uses λαλέω 34 times in 1 Corinthians, 24 being in the discussion of tongues in ch. 14. If we deduct these, it is plain that Paul has a marked preference for λέγω in normal discussions.

⁸⁵ οἱ ἐχ νόμου (4:14) is explicable, but τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ is more difficult. The same preposition is used in 2:12, 23; Gal. 3:11, but the meaning is different in those passages. Käsemann says that ἐν νόμῳ “denotes the sphere of the law’s validity as a factor in salvation history” (p. 87).

Hendriksen William Hendriksen: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, I [1980]; II [1981])

⁸⁶ ἵνα commonly denotes purpose. Some students see result here, but there seems no reason for taking the term in anything other than its usual sense.

⁸⁷ ὑπόδιχος is found here only in the New Testament. Vaughan points out that in classical Greek it takes a dative of the person injured, “Thus τῷ θεῷ here expresses not the Judge before whom the case is tried, but the Person against whom the sin has been committed.” It is a forensic term. Parry comments, “The dative seems always to be used of the person injured, not of the judge. The metaphor, then, suggests a trial as between God and His people.” For Paul God is, of course, both the wronged Person and the Judge.

⁸⁸ “ὑπόδιχος here denotes more than a general unspecified liability to punishment but less than definitive condemnation. It describes the state of an accused person who cannot reply at the trial initiated against him because he has exhausted all possibilities of refuting the charge against him and averting the condemnation and its consequences which ineluctably follow” (C. Maurer, TDNT, VIII, p. 558). Morison argues for the meaning “liable to pay penalty to God”.

⁸⁹ For διότι see on 1:19. SH argue that it does not mean “therefore” but “because”, giving the sense, “Mankind is liable for penalties as against God, because there is nothing else to afford them protection.” BAGD see it here “in place of causal ὅτι” (which is not far from SH). BDF 456(1) have it as “for” rather than “because” (the subordination is “very loose”). Paul is not drawing a conclusion from the preceding (which would require “therefore”), but giving a reason for it (“for”). Cf. Thomas, “Justification must be by something other than works, for law only reveals, it cannot redeem.”

^89a J. D. G. Dunn says, “The ‘works of the law’ must be a shorthand way of referring to that in which the typical Jew placed his confidence, the law-observance which documented his membership of the covenant, his righteousness as a loyal member of the covenant.” (NTS, 31 [1985], p. 528) Dunn stresses the importance of sociological factors and draws attention to the way Paul homes in on circumcision and food laws. It is, of course, true that such matters were important to Jews and marked them off from other people groups. But it may be doubted whether this aspect of Paul’s thought explains the present passage. Paul is arguing that all are sinners. Gentiles and Jews alike, and while it is true that “works of law” will not save the Jews, it is also true that “works of law” (interpret the expression as widely as you will) will not save the Gentiles.

⁹⁰ The verb is διχαιωθήσεται; see Additional Note D.

BDF F. Blass and A. Debrunner: A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. and rev. R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961)

⁹¹ οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ is a Hebraism meaning “nobody” (“all flesh will not” = “nobody will”). Turner sees here an exception to the rule that “the negative precedes what is negatived” (M, III, p. 287). He also notes that οὐ... πᾶς is a “peculiarly Biblical Greek phenomenon” (ibid., p. 196).

⁹² In his sight translates ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. The preposition has a curious distribution, being found not once in Matthew or Mark and once only in John, but occurring 22 times in Luke, 13 times in Acts, and 34 times in Revelation. Paul has it 17 times, three being in Romans.

⁹³ γάρ.

^a 25 Or as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin

⁹⁴ There is a question as to how much of the paragraph is due to Paul. R. Bultmann suggested that vv. 24–25 were non-Pauline traditional matter (Theology of the New Testament, I [London, 1952], p. 46). Käsemann enlarged on the point (he refers to Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I [1960], pp. 96–100), and this view appears to have been widely accepted in Germany (see the list in N. H. Young, ABR XXII [1974], p. 25 n. 7), and to some extent in the U.S.A. (e.g., Charles H. Talbert, JBL, LXXXV [1966], pp. 287–96; John Reumann, Interpretation, XX [1966], pp. 432–52). Cf. also A. M. Hunter, Paul and his Predecessors (London, 1940), pp. 120–22; J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 209–10, though these British writers do not give firm support to the view; interestingly, both relegate discussion of it to an appendix. More recently see Ben F. Meyer, NTS, 29 (1983), pp. 198–208. Young examines the hypothesis critically and concludes “that despite its wide acceptance, in Germany especially, the fragmentary hypothesis of Bultmann and Käsemann is invalid and that Rom. iii.24f. is a genuine insight into Paul’s own peculiar thought” (ABR [1974], p. 32). O’Neill thinks that a glossator has been very busy, and he attempts to resolve a number of the difficulties by accepting readings supported by one or two MSS and even on occasion by none (e.g., omission of “himself” in v. 26). But his suggestions do not commend themselves. There are difficulties in the text, but it is better to face them than to emend the text to one we like better. Even if Paul picked up these ideas from other people, he has made them his own.

⁹⁵ The Greek is νυνὶ δέ. νυνί is a strengthened form of νῦν, but it is not easily distinguished in meaning from the simple form. In the New Testament it is found 15 times out of 18 in Paul, six being in Romans (no other writing has it more than twice). Paul always follows it with δέ. He is here contrasting (δέ is adversative) the situation under the law, which he has just said brings only a recognition of sin, with that under the gospel, where sin is really dealt with. Lloyd-Jones considers this contrast so important that he devotes several pages to it (3:20–4:25, pp. 23–29, 39–43).

TH Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida: A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (New York, 1973)

⁹⁶ TH comments, “For Paul all time is divided into two parts: the time before the revelation of the way in which God puts men in the right with himself, and the time after that.”

⁹⁷ Cf. Robinson, “ ‘righteousness’ does not primarily designate the ethical standard but the religious standing, the status of being right with God. It is not so much goodness as God-acceptedness.”

⁹⁸ Grammatically χωρὶς νόμου could be taken with the verb (“has been manifested apart from law”), but most agree that it is better taken with the noun.

⁹⁹ Notice the perfect tense πεφανέρωται; the manifestation is of continuing force. Some see a reference to the incarnation (e.g., Lagrange), but it is rather to be understood of the atonement.

¹⁰⁰ δέ here marks transition rather than contrast (BAGD, it is used “to insert an explanation that is”), though there may also be “an explanation or an intensification (‘but’, ‘and … at that’)” (BDF 447[8]).

¹⁰¹ Harrison argues for the objective genitive. He thinks that what settles the point is “the precedent in Galatians 2:16, where we find the identical phrase ‘through faith of Jesus Christ’ followed by the explanatory statement, ‘we believed in Christ Jesus.’ ” See also C. F. D. Moule, ET, LXVIII [1956–57], p. 157.

¹⁰² L. T. Johnson takes it in this way (CBQ, 44 [1982], pp. 77–90). George E. Howard cites favorably an argument that πίστις Χριστοῦ “refers to Christ’s faith as opposed to man’s faith in him. The faith of Christ, it was suggested, refers to the divine faithfulness to the promise given to Abraham that in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed” (JBL, LXXXVIII [1969], p. 335). It is not easy to see this meaning in the present passage.

¹⁰³ Barth takes it in the former way, as does T. F. Torrance, ET, LXVIII (1956–57), p. 113, while the latter is espoused by Richard N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (New York, 1964), pp. 149–50, and others. D. W. B. Robinson argues that Paul is saying, “Christ’s faithfulness, in death itself, makes possible an atoning sacrifice which redeems lost men” (RThR, XXIV [1970], p. 80). Similar is G. Howard, ET, LXXXV [1973–74], pp. 212–15.

Althaus Paul Althaus: Der Brief an die Römer (Gottingen, 1970)

¹⁰⁴ Cf. Turner, “God’s act of redemption is seen to be motivated not only by the willingness and faithfulness of Christ by offering himself on behalf of all those who believe in him, but is seen also in the response of men who put their faith in Christ” (Grammatical Insights, p. 111). Of “the controversial phrase, ‘the faith of Jesus Christ’ ” he says, it is “difficult to comprehend it within the limits of either the subjective or objective genitive exclusively”; he suggests that it may share in the qualities of both (ibid., p. 122). Käsemann rejects the idea that the genitive is both objective and subjective, arguing that this view is correct only in “that for Paul the Giver always comes on the scene with the gift”. He sees v. 26 as supporting an objective genitive (p. 94).

¹⁰⁵ εἰς is probably “with respect to” (BAGD 5), or perhaps destination, “extending unto all” (Hodge). πίστις εἰς means “faith in” Christ (Acts 20:21; Col. 2:5), but this is a different usage. Some MSS add χαὶ ἐπὶ πάντας to εἰς πάντας (which is the text behind KJV, “unto all and upon all them that believe”). The attestation of the shorter text is superior and is generally accepted, though Nygren prefers the longer text (thinking it more likely that one of two similar expressions was dropped than that an apparently redundant expression was added. Morison holds that the shorter text may have arisen by homoioteleuton, the eye of the scribe moving from the first πάντας to the second). Wesley accepts the longer text, understanding the first “all” to refer to the Jews and the second to the Gentiles; but there is no reason for this. Better is Lightfoot: “reaching unto and extending over all.”

¹⁰⁶ Hodge sees significance in the use of the genitive after διά, whereas διὰ πίστιν would have meant “on account of faith”. We have the same construction in Phil. 3:9, which also has ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. Paul also uses ἐχ πίστεως (Rom. 9:30; 10:6) and the simple genitive (4:11, 13).

¹⁰⁷ διαστολή is used of the truth that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (10:12), and again of a distinction between musical sounds (1 Cor. 14:7). In the matter of being sinners there is no distinguishing between one person and another.

¹⁰⁸ Shedd insists on “the aoristic meaning” of ἥμαρτον and sees an allusion to the sin of Adam as in 5:12, where the same words are used. Burton regards this as “a collective historical Aorist”, one “evidently intended to sum up the aggregate of the evil deeds of men” (MT, 54). Bengel gives the word a full meaning: “Both the original act of sin in paradise is denoted, and the sinful disposition, as also the acts of transgression flowing from it.”

¹⁰⁹ Gifford takes ὑστεροῦνται as a middle and gives it subjective force, “to feel want”. He contrasts the complacent young ruler who asked, “What lack I yet?” (Matt. 19:20, ὑστερῶ) with the Prodigal who felt his destitution (Luke 15:14, ὑστερεῖσθαι). Denney, however, points out that this “is not borne out by the use of the N.T. as a whole.” Here the point is that they come short, whether they feel it or not.

¹¹⁰ There are divergent translations. Thus GNB reads, “is far away from God’s saving presence”; Phillips, “has fallen short of the beauty of God’s plan”; JB, “forfeited God’s glory”, with an added note citing Exod. 24:16, “that is to say, God as present to human beings and communicating himself to them more and more, a process that can only reach its climax in the messianic era.”

¹¹¹ There are other ways of interpreting the expression: (1) “The radiance which according to the apocalyptic view awaits the justified in heaven” (Käsemann, p. 94; cf. Gifford). But the present tense tells against this, and Godet points out that it then really means to lack the qualifications for glory, which, of course, is not the same as to lack the thing itself. (2) “The divine standard for human life” (Thomas). (3) “Conformity to (God’s) image” (Murray) or to “the divine likeness” (Dodd). (4) The approval of God (as John 12:43); so Hendriksen; cf. Black, “they have lost the divine favour”. (5) “The presence of God and communion with Him” (Leenhardt). (6) “Sanctifying grace” (Boylan). Commentators tend to read their own meaning into the passage.

¹¹² H. Moule puts it like this: “The harlot, the liar, the murderer, are short of it; but so are you. Perhaps they stand at the bottom of a mine, and you on the crest of an Alp; but you are as little able to touch the stars as they” (p. 97).

¹¹³ Grammatically διχαιούμενοι should go with πάντες. But while it is certainly the case that all sin, it is not the case that all are justified. The meaning appears to be that all who are justified are justified in this way. Or there may be a reference back to the πιστεύοντες of v. 22 (so SH, Murray, Denney). If we ask, “Who are the διχαιούμενοι?” we must answer, “The πιστεύοντες”. The use of the participle rather than the indicative links this closely with the foregoing: “being justified” in the way that follows is evidence that all are sinners and come short of God’s glory.

¹¹⁴ Sometimes justification is said to be “a creative act” or the like, and the impression is left that it is the powerful act whereby God brings about a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) or makes the new man (Eph. 2:15; 4:24). But if it is creative, it is, as Barrett says, “a creative act in the field of divine-human relations”. The imagery is forensic. The new creation is not described in the New Testament in terms of justification.

¹¹⁵ δωρεάν is the accusative of δωρεά, “gift”, used as an adverb (cf. NASB, “as a gift”).

¹¹⁶ Curiously Thomas comments, “sin is … a debt…. The debt requires to be paid, and this may be called justification.” But justification is a legal term; it is not the language of commerce. He does better when he says, “To justify means to declare, or pronounce righteous.” Precisely. It has nothing to do with debt, though, of course, from another point of view sin may be regarded as a debt and accordingly we pray, “Forgive us our debts….” Käsemann says that διχαιοῦσθαι here “can only mean ‘to be made righteous’ ”, and he cites Barrett and Cambier in support. But this is to import into the expression a meaning derived elsewhere; it overlooks the fact that the verb is a forensic term, a fact that Käsemann later recognizes when he says, it is “incontestably forensic ‘declaring righteous’ ” (p. 96). It is true that the Christian salvation includes being “made righteous”, but it is not this truth to which justification points us. We must not confuse justification with sanctification.

¹¹⁷ Some minimize the force of justification, perhaps in a laudable attempt to safeguard the truth that the Christian salvation means a mighty miracle: the power of God transforms the sinner into a person whose life is characterized by good works. They are repelled, too, by suggestions of a “legal fiction”, and hold that when God says a person is “righteous” he is righteous. But no reasoning along these lines can alter the fact that justification is a legal term. Paul does not share our inhibitions, but full-bloodedly speaks of God as “acquitting the guilty” (cf. 4:5). He does not soft-pedal the truth that God’s power transforms us (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). But for that he uses other terminology. And so should we. There is no value in trying to turn the legal term into something nonlegal, even when we recognize the paradox involved.

¹¹⁸ BAGD include this occurrence of ἐν under the heading “causal or instrumental—1. introducing the means or instrument”. Where a person is involved they think it means “with the help of”, and translate here, “through Christ” (III.1b). For Christ Jesus see the note on 1:1.

¹¹⁹ It is often suggested that we should discount any reference to the freeing of slaves since Paul used Old Testament categories rather than those derived from the Hellenistic world. But the apostle would not have been unaware of the associations the term would have for freed slaves in the Christian communities.

¹²⁰ Morison thinks the term points to “deliverance which is effected in a legitimate way, and in consistency with the rights and claims of all parties concerned” (p. 254).

¹²¹ Gore sees redemption and propitiation as “mutually corrective”, each counteracting the possible misuse of the other. Propitiation (of the Father) prevents us from seeing the ransom as paid to the devil, while redemption, the idea that the Father gave the Son to buy us out of slavery to sin, makes it impossible to think that “the mind of the Father needed to be changed towards us” (pp. 152–53).

¹²² “The word implies the cost of redemption to him that brings it about; and does not involve (as used) a price paid to the alien master”(CGT).

¹²³ The normal New Testament word for redemption is ἀπολύτρωσις, used here. What is not always noticed is that this is an unusual word, being found ten times in the New Testament and cited about ten times in all Greek literature outside the New Testament. Perhaps the early Christians refrained for the most part from using the normal terminology, thinking that there was something special about the redemption that Christ wrought. I have examined the ten non–New Testament passages in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London and Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 16–18.

¹²⁴ προέθετο. GNB translates “offered”, but the word is not usually a sacrificial term (though BAGD see it as a possible use of the active, at least).

¹²⁵ Hendriksen has a long note in which he argues for this meaning. So Lagrange.

¹²⁶ The word is ἱλαστήριον, elsewhere in the New Testament only in Heb. 9:5. For this word see my article in NTS, II (1955–56), pp. 33–43; The Apostolic Preaching, chs. V and VI and the literature there cited. See also David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge, 1967), ch. 2; C. F. D. Moule in The Parish Communion To-day, ed. David M. Paton (London, 1962), pp. 78–93. TH says that this word group “is sometimes used by pagan writers in the sense of propitiation” and that “it is never used this way in the Old Testament.” The first statement is misleading: only two passages in all the range of Greek literature seem ever to be claimed as supporting a meaning other than propitiation (see The Apostolic Preaching, pp. 145–47). The second is simply wrong. Surely no serious student can doubt the meaning “propitiate” in, e.g., Zech. 7:2; 8:22; Mal. 1:9. I have tried to show that this meaning is characteristic in the Old Testament (ibid., pp. 155–74).

¹²⁷ T. C. G. Thornton cites evidence from Jewish sources that prayers and sacrifices can be seen as propitiatory; nevertheless he rejects the idea of propitiation here (and in 1 John 4:10), since if the words “in these passages had any propitiatory significance, they would imply that God was indirectly propitiating Himself, an idea for which I can find no parallel in Jewish or New Testament literature” (ET LXXX [1968–69], p. 54). We should set aside the absence of any Jewish parallel, for Paul is talking about something unique: Judaism knows nothing of a Messiah on a cross. But many authors have difficulty with the idea of God propitiating himself (as I do myself). There is certainly a paradox here. But how else are we to account for two things: (a) God’s wrath is directed towards sinners, and (b) the removal of that wrath is due to God himself? It may sound paradoxical to say that God provides the propitiation, but it accounts for the facts. It is significant that Thornton does not take the wrath of God into consideration in his discussion.

¹²⁸ K. Grayston has an interesting discussion of propitiation in “ἱλάσχεσθαι and Related Words in LXX” (NTS, 27 [1980–81], pp. 640–56). He ends with the view that in the present passage Paul perhaps took ἱλαστήριον from “a traditional formulation and modified it by adding διὰ πίστεως: ‘an act of propitiation when interpreted by faith’ ” (ibid., p. 653). While I am glad that he recognizes the propitiatory force of the term in the present passage, it should perhaps be added that the comment on God’s propitiating himself in n. 127^† applies to some of Grayston’s own argument (e.g., p. 655 n.23).

¹²⁹ Whether ἱλαστήριον is to be seen as an adjective or a noun is a matter of dispute. If an adjective, it might agree with ὅν (Denney) or with “sacrifice” understood (Cranfield). A few examples of the adjective are cited, but they are rare. It is much more likely that we should see the term here as a neuter noun with a meaning like “the removal of wrath”. Some regard it as a masculine noun, “propitiator”, but this has had little acceptance.

¹³⁰ But such considerations do not stop O’Neill from saying: “In the supreme and key relationship with God we need to find a sacrifice. The news entrusted to the apostles is that God has put Jesus Christ before us as a sacrifice. We are able to offer him.” Besides the firm identification of ἱλαστήριον with sacrifice we have here the thought that we do the offering. Could anything be further from the thrust of this passage?

¹³¹ This is sometimes exaggerated, as when J. A. Ziesler says: “In the Greek OT it is invariably used for the lid of the Ark of the Covenant” (ET, 93 [1981–82], p. 358). It is not so used, e.g., in any of the five occurrences in Ezekiel, nor in Amos 9:1. Ziesler recognizes that propitiation is not an impossible explanation, though he prefers something like expiation.

¹³² See Barth, Gifford, Bruce, T. W. Manson (JTS, XLVI [1945], pp. 1–10), etc. Calvin prefers “mercy-seat” but leaves the question open, for “God, apart from Christ, is always angry with us” and “we are reconciled to Him when we are accepted by His righteousness.”

¹³³ Cf. Denney, “A ‘mercy-seat’ is not such a self-evident, self-interpreting idea, that the Apostle could lay it at the heart of his gospel without a word of explanation.”

¹³⁴ There is not the same discussion here as in v. 22 as to whether the genitive is subjective or objective, most interpreters simply assuming the latter. It would be possible, though, to understand it as subjective and think of the Father’s faithfulness, or that of Christ.

¹³⁵ If we take the expression in this way, it is best to see the meaning, with Haldane, as “we believe that His death is a sacrifice which makes atonement for us”.

¹³⁶ ἐν will denote the means (cf. 5:9; Heb. 9:22; Rev. 7:14) or the price (BDF 219[3]; M, III, p. 253). Moule classes it “Of accompaniment, attendant circumstances”, perhaps meaning “to deal with sin … by his blood” (IBNTG, p. 78); he further thinks that ἐν indicates the sphere rather than the object of faith (ibid., p. 81).

¹³⁷ See my The Apostolic Preaching, ch. III and the literature there cited. Leenhardt is one commentator who sees blood as “the sign of a life which is at first offered to God and then given back by God, renewed, restored and forgiven.” This sort of thing sounds impressive, but proof that it is Paul’s meaning has not been produced.

¹³⁸ εἰς might indicate purpose or result.

¹³⁹ ἔνδειξις is used only by Paul in the New Testament (four times). A number of grammarians draw attention to the rule of Apollonius Dyscolus: where nouns are in regimen, both have the article or both lack it; but this may be modified, as here, so that the first is anarthrous and the second has the article (see M, III, p. 180).

¹⁴⁰ For ἀνοχή see the note on 2:4.

¹⁴¹ ἁμάρτημα occurs here only in Romans and only twice in Paul. It does not differ from ἁμαρτία except that it is confined to acts of sin and is not used of the principle.

¹⁴² πάρεσις differs from ἄφεσις as “passing over” differs from “forgiveness”. It means that consideration of the sins in question is set aside for the time being; they may subsequently be either punished or forgiven. V. Taylor rejects the idea that the word here could mean forgiveness and points out that in that case διά + accusative would be prospective, “with a view to”, a meaning rare in the classics and not found in LXX or MM. He considers it much more likely that it is used here in its “almost invariable causal sense, ‘because of,’ with reference to something that has already happened” (ET, L [1938–39], p. 298). Barrett sees a real difference between πάρεσις and ἄφεσις and points out that to take the meaning “pretermission” allows διά to have its more usual meaning and gives a better sense. Others (e.g., Hodge) see the two words as meaning much the same, but this is unconvincing. We perhaps get something of the force of the word when we notice that ben Sirach uses the corresponding verb in praying that his sins be not passed by (Sir. 23:2). He was certainly not praying that he would not be forgiven; rather, he looked for suitable chastisement (not condonation) so that he would be deterred from serious sin. Cf. also Wis. 11:23, “thou dost overlook men’s sins, that they may repent.”

¹⁴³ προγεγονότων, found here only in the New Testament. Most see the reference to the sins of people in past days.

¹⁴⁴ The preposition is πρός, which BAGD say is used here “of the goal aimed at or striven toward -a. with conscious purpose, for, for the purpose of”. The article used here (but not in the previous expression) signifies “the demonstration just mentioned”.

¹⁴⁵ εἰς τό may indicate purpose or result (BDF 402[2]), with purpose predominating in Paul. There is no doubt that purpose is in mind here. Turner classes this among passages where the construction is “final or very near it” (M, III, p. 143) though Lenski sees result.

¹⁴⁶ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίχαιον points to more than manifestation. It is important that God not only be seen to be just, but that he be just. Cf. Tom Wright, in Romans “Paul presents justification as God’s answer to his own, not merely to man’s problem” (Gavin Reid, ed., The Great Acquittal [London, 1980], p. 23).

¹⁴⁷ Simeon comments that in the light of the cross God’s forgiveness is not only a matter of mercy: “It is not an act of mercy, but of justice, to liberate a man whose debt has been discharged by a surety.”

¹⁴⁸ Cf. Brown, “what to him who paid the ransom is justice, may be grace, pure grace, to him for whom it was paid” (pp. 38–39).

¹⁴⁹ τὸν ἐχ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ. The expression ἐχ πίστεως is found a number of times (cf. 1:17). But this expression, preceded as it is by the article, is rare. Indeed, in this precise form it is found here only in the New Testament. τῷ ἐχ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ is found in 4:16, but this refers to the faith exercised by the patriarch, not to trust in him. οἱ ἐχ πίστεως occurs in Gal. 3:7, 9 (cf. Gal. 2:16; 3:22; Phil. 3:9). ἐχ πίστεως is rare outside Paul. Similar expressions are found for other qualities, e.g., οἱ ἐξ ἐριθείας (2:8). The meaning of the expression here does not seem to be in doubt, but it is certainly unusual. Turner discovers the sense “belonging to (-ists, of a sect or school)” and explains it here: “the noun after ἐχ expresses the character or standards of these men” (M, III, p. 260). L. T. Johnson sees a subjective genitive with the meaning “ ‘the one who shares the faith of Jesus,’ meaning ‘one who has faith as Jesus had faith’ ” (CBQ, 44 [1982], p. 80). Linguistically this is possible, but an objective genitive (as NIV) is more in accordance with Paul’s thought.

¹⁵⁰ He introduces it with ποῦ, a word he uses ten times, but only here in Romans. His οὖν is important: his question is devastating in light of what he has just said. It is because of Christ’s act that there is no place for human initiative.

¹⁵¹ χαύχησις is a favorite Pauline word: he uses it in ten of its 11 New Testament occurrences (the other is in James). For the corresponding verb see on 2:17. Bultmann points out that “χαύχησις denotes boasting as an act; χαύχημα is what is said in boasting … or the object of pride or boasting”, though the distinction is not invariable (TDNT, III, p. 649 n.35). He says further, “Paul’s rejection of boasting is not motivated, as is that of the Gks. … by the fact that boasting violates dignity and makes a man an ἀνελεύθερος, bringing him into dependence on others … but by the fact that it violates the divine glory and brings man into dependence on the σάρξ” (ibid., p. 650 n. 40).

Michel Otto Michel: Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen, 1966)

¹⁵² ἐξεχλείσθη. The verb is found again in the New Testament only in Gal. 4:17.

¹⁵³ Calvin sweeps away distinctions between different kinds of merit such as “congruous merit” and “condign merit”, for “Paul is not concerned with the diminution or moderation of merit, but does not leave a single participle remaining.”

¹⁵⁴ ποῖος is not common in Paul (twice only; here only in Romans). It really means “what kind of?” though it is often equivalent to τις, “what?”

¹⁵⁵ Hendriksen translates “basis”.

¹⁵⁶ Barrett rejects the translation “principle” because it is too philosophical for Paul, and further he would not change his meaning between v. 27 and v. 28 where νόμος must mean “law”. Since, however, Paul sets two “laws” over against each other, it cannot simply be the Jewish law: “The fact … is that here and elsewhere for Paul law (νόμος) means something like ‘religious system’, often, of course, though not always, the religious system of Judaism.” Some who accept the interpretation that points to “religion” go beyond Barrett and press the view beyond what is legitimate. They sometimes take God’s justification of the ungodly (4:5) to mean that it is those without religion, not those with it, whom God saves. But Paul’s point is that religion is irrelevant; what matters is faith. Neither the religious nor the irreligious as such are saved, but either way they may be justified by faith.

¹⁵⁷ οὐχί, which is found in Paul 17 times out of the New Testament total of 53 (three in Romans).

¹⁵⁸ ἀλλά.

¹⁵⁹ Barth speaks of the “law of the faithfulness of God”, which is the same as the “law of faith”, “the place where we are established by God.” There seems, however, no reason for taking πίστις here in the sense of “faithfulness”; the meaning surely is “faith”. But that Paul means “we are established by God” is not in dispute.

¹⁶⁰ W. Guthrod sees νόμος here as “meant in the broader sense of the divine ordinance which describes faith, not works, as the right conduct of man, to the exclusion of self-boasting before God” (TDNT, IV, p. 1071). I hesitate over the description of faith as “the right conduct of man”; it seems that Paul is saying rather that no conduct of man can bring him justification. Faith is not so much “the right conduct” as the abandonment of all reliance on conduct. It is trusting God, not one’s conduct.

¹⁶¹ The connective in some good MSS is οὖν (B C D^c etc.), but most recent critics accept γάρ (א A D* etc.), partly because the attestation is considered somewhat better and partly because “ver. 28 gives a reason for the argument in ver. 27, not a conclusion from it” (Metzger).

¹⁶² λογίζομαι is thoroughly Pauline (see the note on 2:3). Morison says that Paul “not only represents himself as thinking, he realizes that he was thinking reasonably” (p. 374). H. W. Heidland holds that here the word stands for “the ‘judgment of faith’ ” and that all questions “are framed in terms of such a conclusion: What are the consequences of the crucifixion for the righteousness of man (R. 3:28)?” (TDNT, IV, p. 288). The term points to a process of reasoning, but as Paul uses it it is not a secular process; it is the reasoning of a believing person, one saved through the cross.

¹⁶³ Paul has spoken of faith in connection with salvation a number of times, but this is the first time he has used the simple dative. The same construction is used with respect to introduction (5:2), standing by faith (11:20; 2 Cor. 1:24), being founded in faith (Col. 1:23), established in faith (Col. 2:7), being sound in faith (Tit. 2:2). But this appears to be the only place in the New Testament where the dative πίστει is used in connection with justification (the dative πίστει occurs, but in expressions like those noted and in “strong in faith” and the like, as in 4:19, 20; 14:1; 2 Cor. 8:7; Phil. 1:27; again the dative is used with justification, but it is “by grace”, v. 24; Tit. 3:7).

¹⁶⁴ As is well known, Luther translated “by faith alone” and came in for criticism for adding to the text. But whether we add “alone” or not, that is surely the meaning of the text, for if we see anything at all in addition to faith as needed for justification it is not “by faith” that we are justified. Luther, of course, did not originate the addition, which goes back to Origen and was espoused by Roman Catholic writers before the Reformation (see the references in Morison, pp. 378–79; Hodge, etc.).

¹⁶⁵ Barth sees this as “the ‘No’, which is, nevertheless, the ‘Yes’.” He goes on, “It is God who pronounces and speaks and renders, who selects and values according to His pleasure.”

¹⁶⁶ Hodge comments, “not by works which the law produces, but works which the law demands”.

¹⁶⁷ Joachim Jeremias speaks of “the first basic sentence of Paul: not the deeds of the law but the faith in Him who died for our sins is the way to justification. Sola fide we are justified” (ET, LXVI [1954–55], p. 369).

¹⁶⁸ Indeed, they were capable of drawing a very different conclusion: R. Simon b. Yoḥai said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: ‘I am God over all earth’s creatures, yet I have associated My name only with you; for I am not called ‘the god of the idolaters’ but ‘the God of Israel’ ” (Exodus Rabbah xxix.4).

¹⁶⁹ Cf. BDF 254(3).

¹⁷⁰ εἴπερ is a strengthened form of εἰ and means “if indeed, if after all, since” (BAGD). There is a variant, ἐπείπερ, but its meaning is not significantly different. NEB has “if it be true”, but the particle conveys the meaning of certainty rather than doubt (cf. TH).

¹⁷¹ Paul has ἐχ πίστεως of the Jew and διὰ τῆς πίστεως of the Gentile. Both prepositions have elicited a good deal of discussion. SH see a significant difference: the Jew is “justified ἐχ πίστεως διὰ περιτομῆς: the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is circumcision. The Gentile is justifed ἐχ πίστεως χαὶ διὰ τῆς πίστεως: no special channel, no special conditions are marked out, faith is the one thing needful, it is itself ‘both law and impulse.’ ” Moule, however, thinks “credulity is strained” by the distinction (IBNTG, p. 195), and most agree that there is no essential difference. Paul uses both prepositions freely with πίστις (ἐχ, 1:17; 3:26; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30; 10:6; διά, Gal. 2:16; 3:14, 26; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9; 2 Tim. 3:15). It is not easy to see a significant difference. Moreover, in Gal. 2:16 he says that “we Jews” know that “a man” is justified “by faith (διὰ πίστεως) in Christ Jesus” and that, knowing this, we “have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith (ἐχ πίστεως) in Christ”; both prepositions are used of the Jews. Again, in Gal. 3:8 he speaks of the Gentiles as justified ἐχ πίστεως, the very expression used of the Jews here. Turner, however, while recognizing the strength of the other view, suggests that we should take seriously the change of preposition and the fact that πίστεως has the article on the second occasion but not the first. He suggests the translation, “God will justify the Jews as a direct result of their faith and then will justify the Gentiles by means of that same faith” (i.e., by the faith of the Jews); “The Jews are justified by their faith, and the Gentiles by the faith of the Jews” (Grammatical Insights, pp. 108, 109). But if SH may be accused of being oversubtle in their distinction between prepositions, perhaps a similar charge may be directed against Turner in his distinction between the arthrous and the anarthrous nouns.

¹⁷² Lloyd-Jones points to the article (“the faith”) and holds that Paul “means this message” (p. 139).

¹⁷³ Cf. Charles H. Giblin, “Law itself is established (vs. 31) in the sense that a juridical arrangement and norm of action is definitely realized in the bond of faith in Jesus Christ” (CBQ, XXXVII [1975], p. 545).

¹⁷⁴ The verb uphold translates ἱστάνομεν, from ἱστάνω, a variant of ἱστήμι. Paul uses it six times in Romans and 16 times in all. It means “to make to stand”. NEB translates, “we are placing law itself on a firmer footing”. Cranfield’s comment on this seems justified: this “is surely to put into Paul’s mouth a self-important utterance which is quite out of character.”

¹⁷⁵ Turner argues that the absence of the article the second time indicates that the second occurrence does not have the same meaning as the first. He sees the first “law” as the Torah and the second as “a principle”. The meaning then would be: “Are we then … setting the Torah at nought? Oh, no! At least we have established a principle” (Grammatical Insights, p. 109). But this seems oversubtle. We need more than the absence of the article to show that two occurrences of the same word so close together indicate such a radical difference in meaning.

¹⁷⁶ F. X. Steinleitner, TDNT, I, p. 295 n.86.

¹⁷⁷ Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1965), p. 185.

¹⁷⁸ “All the sins of man rests on Him, whether past or present”(W. Grundmann, TDNT, I, p. 312).

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, a translation by Geoffrey W. Bromiley of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Grand Rapids, 1964–76)

¹⁷⁹ The literature on the subject is enormous, but the following may be consulted: articles in TDNT, I, pp. 267–335; IDB, IV, pp. 361–76; IBD, III, pp. 1456–59; Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1965), ch. 5; C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Sin (London, 1953). The relevant section of theologies of the Old Testament and of the New Testament are also useful; see, e.g., Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (London, 1981), pp. 187–218.

^a 3 Gen. 15:6; also in verse 22

^b 8 Psalm 32:1, 2

¹ Darrel J. Doughty says, “the meaning of πίστις was well determined by its place of central significance within Jewish religion. Traditional πίστις referred to the recognition of the one true God and to obedience to the will of God as expressed in his commandments” (NTS, XIX [1972–73], p. 165). The Jewish scholar H. J. Schoeps quotes approvingly A. Meyer’s words, “faith becomes a zealous obedience in the matter of fulfilling the law, and its individual prescriptions” (Paul [London, 1961], p. 203). He finds Paul’s position difficult: “this new tearing asunder of polarities, this absolute opposition between faith, on the one hand, and the law, on the other, quite contrary to the continuous meaning of the Biblical narrative, has always been unintelligible to the Jewish thinker” (ibid., p. 202). See further, C. K. Barrett, From First Adam to Last (London, 1962), pp. 22–45.

² For τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν see the note on 3:5.

MSS Manuscripts

³ εὑρηχέναι precedes Ἀβραάμ in א A C D G etc. (“Abraham our forefather according to the flesh has found”; cf. KJV); it follows ἡμῶν in K P and many cursives (“Abraham our forefather has found according to the flesh”; cf. ASV); and it is omitted by B 1739 Or Eph. Curiously the omission is favored by many recent translations (as RSV, NEB, JB, Goodspeed, Moffatt), but not by most commentators. Metzger and his committee argue for the retention of the verb; they see no reason why copyists should add it in various places if it did not belong to the text and further that the omission could be accidental, arising from the similarity of the beginnings of the two successive verbs. Those who argue for the omission urge the tendency of scribes to supply what they see as lacking in an elliptical expression and the varying position of the verb in the MSS. R. R. Williams finds the position so difficult that he sees conjectural emendation as our only hope; he suggests εἰργάσθαι (“that Abraham has worked”; ET LXIII [1951–52], pp. 91–92). But such suggestions have not convinced many. Our best course is to accept the word. Lenski gives another understanding of the text when he takes the subject of the infinitive εὑρηχέναι from the preceding verb and translates, “What, then, shall we say? That we have found Abraham (to be) our forefather (only) according to the flesh?” This is a possible, but unlikely, understanding of the Greek and difficult to fit in with v. 2. Some MSS read πατέρα instead of προπάτορα, but this looks like the substitution of a familiar word for a less common one, and in any case the meaning is the same.

Michel Otto Michel: Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen, 1966)

⁴ χατὰ σάρχα (see the note on 1:3). A contrast may be intended with the different kind of fatherhood that will be mentioned in v. 11.

TH Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida: A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (New York, 1973)

⁵ Cf. also Jub. 24:11, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thy father obeyed My voice, and kept My charge and My commandments, and My laws, and My ordinances, and My covenant” (words spoken by God to Isaac). Abraham “kept the law of the Most High, and was taken into covenant with him; he established the covenant in his flesh, and when he was tested he was found faithful” (Sir. 44:20; v. 19 says, “no one has been found like him in glory”). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were seen as men “who did not sin against” God (Prayer of Manasseh 8). There are many such passages; see SBk, III, pp. 186ff.

⁶ NIV translates γάρ as in fact, but it is better rendered “for” (as RSV).

⁷ The conditional clause is not easy (εἰ with the aorist in the protasis and a present in the apodosis). Robertson classes it as “Determined as fulfilled”; he points out that there was a good deal of liberty regarding the tense in the apodosis (p. 1009). For the sake of the argument, he thinks, Paul is allowing for the moment that Abraham was justified by works and proceeding to see what follows.

⁸ This translates one word, χαύχημα. It is akin to χαύχησις in 3:27, where see note.

⁹ Note the strong adversative ἀλλά.

NIV New International Version

¹⁰ The word is γάρ, which Barrett sees as “a genuinely argumentative particle: Abraham has no ground of boasting before God, for Scripture says….” The alternative, “Yes, Abraham would then have some ground for boasting, but on the human level only; not before God”, takes away the “argumentative force” of the γάρ and introduces a distinction between boasting before men and before God “which does not seem to be in Paul’s mind.” Lightfoot regards v. 2 as parenthetical and connects γάρ with the question of v. 1, “What account then are we to give of Abraham our forefather? Why, what does the scripture say?“ But it is better to take it with οὐ πρὸς θεόν, “not towards God, for….”

¹¹ Käsemann, however, sees the singular as pointing to Scripture as a whole, not the individual passage (p. 106).

LXX The Septuagint

¹² Except for the minor points that Paul has δέ where the LXX has χαί, his spelling is Ἀβραάμ where LXX has Ἀβράμ, LXX has the passive where the Hebrew has the active of the verb “reckoned”, and LXX has the name Ἀβράμ where the Hebrew says “he”.

¹³ Mekilta Exod. 14:15, 31 (cited from Cranfield; the first passage is attributed to R. Shemaiah, c. 50 B.C.). Sometimes works and faith are linked (2 Esdr. 9:7). Some writers esteem faith very highly; e.g., “Those who trust in him will understand truth, and the faithful will abide with him in love, because grace and mercy are upon his elect, and he watches over his holy ones” (Wis. 3:9). But such passages are not typical, and it is more common to have faith understood as a work, e.g., in the well-known Qumran comments on Hab. 2:4, “the righteous will live by his faith”, which when interpreted “concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah” (Vermes, p. 239; the passage goes on to refer to “their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness“). Schoeps cites as “typical of Jewish piety” a saying of R. Nehemiah (c. A.D. 150): “He who fulfils a commandment in faith merits highest praise before God” (Paul, p. 204). He holds that “With Paul the faith of the pious believer (in the Messianic status of Christ) replaced the Jew’s fidelity to the law and becomes the sum of all truth and wisdom” (ibid., pp. 204–5).

¹⁴ Derek Kidner notes that in both Gen. 15 and Rom. 4 faith is presented “not as a crowning merit but as readiness to accept what God promises.” He proceeds, “Note that Abram’s trust was both personal (in the Lord, AV, RV) and propositional (the context is the specific word of the Lord in verses 4, 5)” (Genesis [London, 1967], p. 124). Godet speaks of faith as “a simple receptivity”.

¹⁵ For λογίζομαι see the note on 2:3. It is used of Phinehas in Ps. 106:31. The verb is a deponent, but is used here with passive force, a construction rare in the present tense (v. 4), though more frequent in the aorist (here; cf. M, III, p. 58). Paul uses it 11 times in this chapter; it is very much in his mind at this point. There is a useful discussion by H. W. Heidland (TDNT, IV, pp. 289–92).

¹⁶ Godet comments, “It is possible to put to one’s account what he possesses or what he does not possess. In the first case it is a simple act of justice; in the second, it is a matter of grace. The latter is Abraham’s case, since God reckons his faith to him for what it is not: for righteousness.

¹⁷ Turner cites this passage as an example of the use of εἰς + accusative “in place of the predicate nominative owing to the Hellenistic tendency towards greater expressiveness” (M, III, p. 253).

Käsemann Ernst Käsemann: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980)

¹⁸ δέ is a transitional participle here, with the meaning “now”; it does not have adversative force.

¹⁹ δέ occurs twice in this verse. The first δέ sets this whole verse in opposition to the preceding, and the second sets “believing” over against “working”.

²⁰ πιστεύω is here followed by ἐπί, as in v. 24; 9:33; 10:11, etc. The construction rests faith upon God, so to speak. Hodge comments, “The faith which justifies is not mere assent, it is an act of trust.” He thinks that the singular is used because “God does not justify communities.” While we should not underestimate the importance of the beloved community, it is still true that faith is a personal activity. Moulton sees the use of prepositions after this verb as largely a Christian practice, arising because it was necessary for Christians to be able to distinguish between “believe” and “believe in”. He says, “To repose one’s trust upon God or Christ was well expressed by πιστεύειν ἐπί, the dative suggesting more of the state, and the accusative more of the initial act of faith; while εἰς recalls at once the bringing of the soul into that mystical union which Paul loved to express by ἐν Χριστῷ” (M, I, p. 68).

²¹ He has spoken of faith in Christ (3:22, 26); now he speaks of faith in God. Both, of course, are objects of faith for the Christian, and the fact that faith may be directed to Christ as to the Father with no appreciable difference in meaning tells us something about the way Paul regarded Christ.

GNB Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)

²² ἀσεβής, defined as “destitute of reverential awe towards God, contemning God, impious” (GT). Strictly it does not denote wickedness in general, but a basically wrong attitude to God (though in LXX it is often used of wickedness in general). The Jews could regard Abraham as a proselyte, for he spoke of himself as “a stranger (גֵּר)” (Gen. 23:4), and he was not circumcised until he was 99 years old (Mekilta Exod. 22:20, cited in G. F. Moore, Judaism, I [Cambridge, 1958], p. 344). He might thus be regarded as “ungodly” (cf. Josh. 24:2–3). And David, who is about to be referred to, gave occasion to men to blaspheme (2 Sam. 12:14). The singular is used in the generic sense, but it applies to the two great ones Paul names.

²³ Denney comments, “The whole Pauline gospel could be summed up in this one word—God who justifies the ungodly…. The paradoxical phrase, Him that justifieth the ungodly, does not suggest that justification is a fiction, whether legal or of any other sort, but that it is a miracle.”

²⁴ He introduces the verse with χαθάπερ = χατά + ἅπερ = “just as”; Paul uses this 16 times out of 17 New Testament occurrences, six times in Romans. Robertson sees it as “thoroughly Attic and a slight literary touch” (p. 967). χαθάπερ χαί is found again in 2 Cor. 1:14; 1 Thess. 3:6, 12; 4:5. The “also” is important here; it links David with Abraham.

²⁵ Moule comments on the linking of David with Abraham: “David in the guilt of his murderous adultery, and Abraham in the grave walk of his worshipping obedience, stand upon the same level here. Actually or potentially, each is a great sinner. Each turns from himself, unworthy, to God in His promise” (p. 106).

²⁶ Simeon holds that we may go back to Adam, and find “no hope but in ‘the Seed of the woman, who would bruise the serpent’s head.’ There has been but one way of salvation for fallen man from the beginning of the world: nor shall there be any other as long as the world shall stand” (p. 98).

RSV The Revised Standard Version

²⁷ It is not easy to arrive at a satisfactory translation of this expression. Many translators agree with NIV, speaks of the blessedness, but μαχαρισμός does not mean “blessedness”, which is rather μαχαριότης (SH, Cranfield). Black rejects RSV, “pronounces a blessing”, and NEB, “speaks of the happiness”, in favor of “being pronounced blessed by God”. F. Hauck says that “the special feature” of the word group “in the NT is that it refers overwhelmingly to the distinctive religious joy which accrues to man from his share in the salvation of the kingdom of God” (TDNT, IV, p. 367).

²⁸ A number of commentators draw attention to the rabbinic practice called g^ezerah shawa’. When the same word occurs in two passages, each may be used to explain the other. Since λογίζομαι occurs in both passages, each may be called on to explain the other.

²⁹ μαχάριοι. G. Bertram says, “characteristic biblical beatitudes refer simply to the one who trusts in God, who hopes and waits for Him, who fears and loves Him” (TDNT, IV, p. 366). The word may refer to secular happiness, but the characteristic Old Testament use is for blessedness before God.

SH William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)

³⁰ ἀνομία. Paul uses it six times in all, twice in Romans.

³¹ He uses the verb ἀφίημι five times out of 142 in the New Testament, and only here in the sense “to forgive”. The noun ἄφεσις, “forgiveness”, occurs twice in the Pauline writings.

³² For sins see Additional Note F. ἐπιχαλύπτω is used here only in the New Testament. It will scarcely differ in meaning from the uncompounded verb.

³³ This is Paul’s first use of ἀνήρ in this epistle, where he uses it nine times (59 times in all, out of 216 times in the New Testament). He uses ἄνθρωπος much more often (27 times in Romans and 126 times in all).

³⁴ οὐ μή. The double negative occurs frequently in the LXX, but in the New Testament it is rare apart from quotations from LXX and the words of Jesus. Moulton has a detailed examination of the construction (M, I, pp. 187–92). He shows that in the New Testament 90 percent of the occurrences are in quotations from LXX and sayings of Jesus. He suggests that in both there is “a feeling that inspired language was fitly rendered by words of a decisive tone not needed generally elsewhere” (p. 192). In Paul, apart from quotations from LXX, it occurs only four times.

³⁵ The MSS are divided. Some read οὗ, “whose sin” (as JB); others, ᾧ, “to whom” (as KJV, Phillips). It is not easy to be sure, but perhaps Lightfoot is right in accepting ᾧ in the Psalm and οὗ in the way it is quoted here.

³⁶ “And every one that is born, the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs not to the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham, but to the children of destruction; nor is there, moreover, any sign on him that he is the Lord’s”(Jub. 15:26). Rabbi (i.e., Judah the Patriarch, 2nd cent. A.D.) said, “Great is circumcision, for despite all the religious duties which Abraham our father fulfilled, he was not called ‘perfect’ until he was circumcised” (Ned. 3:11; another is reported as saying that but for circumcision God would not have created the world). It was laid down that “Unless the seal of Abraham is inscribed on your flesh, you cannot taste” the Passover (Exod. R. xix.5). Again, “No Israelite man who is circumcised will go down to Gehinnom.” What then of the few very wicked in Israel who deserve Gehinnom? They cannot go down to that place of doom circumcised, so God “sends an angel who stretches their foreskin and then they descend to Gehinnom” (Exod. R. xix.4). Jews held that the circumcised could not possibly end in the place of torment. For the place of circumcision see further SBk, IV, pt. 1, pp. 23–40.

³⁷ Despite its omission in NIV, RSV, etc., οὖν is meaningful.

³⁸ He has used the principle of g^ezerah shawa’ to enable Ps. 36 to shed light on Gen. 15. Now he reverses the process and shows that the blessing of which David speaks is to be explained in terms of faith like that of Abraham.

³⁹ GNB renders, “When did this take place?” which is a curious translation. πῶς means “how?” not “when?”, there is no “this”, and λογίζομαι does not mean “take place”.

⁴⁰ On each occasion ἐν will have a meaning like “in a state of”. ὄντι most naturally refers to a continuing state.

⁴¹ According to the chronology accepted by the Jews, the interval was 29 years. They saw the patriarch’s age as 70 at the time of the dividing of the sacrifice (Gen. 15:10; Seder Olam R. 1, cited in SBk, III, p. 203).

⁴² The genitive περιτομῆς means something like “a sign consisting in circumcision”. Moule points out that this is more than an adjective: “it represents nothing less than a second noun in apposition to the first” (IBNTG, p. 38).

IDB The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville, 1962); Supplementary Volume (1976)

⁴³ SH quote a prayer used at the circumcising of a child: “Blessed be He who … sealed His offspring with the sign of a holy covenant.” There are rabbinic references to circumcision as a seal, and, while explicit attestation is late (Käsemann, p. 115), this was probably as early as New Testament times (circumcision is called a seal in Ep. Barn. 9:6, which is not far removed; cf. Michel, p. 119 n. 4; G. Fitzer, TDNT, VII, pp. 947–48). In the early church baptism was, of course, often referred to as a seal, and this may possibly reflect Jewish terminology (so Käsemann).

⁴⁴ Cf. Leenhardt, “By the sign God speaks to the outside world; the sign is the distinctive mark. By the seal, God speaks rather to the believer himself; the seal is the mark which guarantees authenticity.”

⁴⁵ It is grammatically possible to see faith as τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀχροβυστίᾳ, but it is better to see a reference to righteousness, as NIV, RSV, etc. (cf. Cranfield, “it is Abraham’s righteousness, not his faith, which is directly at issue”).

⁴⁶ The construction εἰς τό + infinitive, it is true, can on occasion express result, and this is the justification for NIV’s So then. But it more often expresses purpose; thus RSV is surely right in translating “The purpose was….” See the note on 1:20. Purpose is seen here by Turner (M, III, p. 143), Cranfield, and others; result by Lagrange.

⁴⁷ Cf. T. Wright, “Abraham is no mere example of faith. He is the father of the worldwide covenant family which God has always promised and now has established in Christ” (G. Reid, ed., The Great Acquittal [London, 1980], p. 24).

⁴⁸ διʼ ἀχροβυστίας will be the διά of attendant circumstances, “for all their circumcision.”

⁴⁹ Lightfoot comments, “The genitive περιτομῆς does not describe Abraham’s progeny, as many commentators take it, but his own condition.” He was “a father belonging to circumcision, himself circumcised.”

⁵⁰ Literally, “to those not of the circumcision only”, which may be an imitation of a Hebrew construction, “father to”, or a dative of advantage (Hodge).

⁵¹ On οὐχ... μόνον Bengel comments, “Abraham, therefore, is not the father of circumcision to such as are merely of the circumcision, and do not also follow the faith of Abraham.” Burton says that in the New Testament οὐ μόνον occurs regularly rather than μὴ μόνον when the phrase applies either to an infinitive or “to some limitation of the infinitive” (MT, 481).

⁵² The construction is difficult, for the repetition of τοῖς before στοιχοῦσιν strictly means that those who walk are different from those who not only are circumcised; clearly this is not what Paul means. He is speaking of one group, not two. The MS tradition is unanimous, which is surprising. WH thought that the original may have been αὐτοῖς and the present reading a corruption, but this is difficult to accept. Others think that a very early scribe, perhaps even Tertius himself, made a mistake and all others copied it. C. F. D. Moule speaks of it as “an intrusive article” (IBNTG, p. 110). Cranfield draws attention to the fact that the second τοῖς is “ruled out systematically … by the position of the earlier τοῖς in relation to οὐχ... μόνον” (Hodge is similar). It fits neither grammatically nor theologically and must be rejected.

⁵³ The verb στοιχέω (in Paul four times out of five in the New Testament) means “orig. ‘be drawn up in line’, in our lit. only fig. be in line with, stand beside a pers. or thing, hold to, agree with, follow” (BAGD). SH speak of it as a military term meaning “march in file”.

⁵⁴ Cf. Bengel, “Circumcision was at least a sign, uncircumcision was not even a sign.” At the time God accepted him Abraham had nothing.

^a 17 Gen. 17:5

⁵⁵ The strong adversative ἀλλά sets this over against through law.

⁵⁶ BDF 399(1) see τὸ χληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι as epexegetical to ἐπαγγελία, the article both times designating what is well known. They speak of the nominative and accusative of the substantivized infinitive (without preposition) as “found sporadically in Mt and Mk, somewhat more frequently in Paul, and almost never elsewhere.” RSV translates, “… to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world” (Phillips and LB are similar). But this ignores the singular αὐτόν; the promise refers to Abraham.

⁵⁷ Harrison takes strictly the application to Abraham (it is not his descendants who will inherit the world) and understands the world he will inherit to mean “the multitude of those who will follow Abraham in future generations in terms of his faith.” Murray speaks of “the worldwide dominion promised to Christ and to the spiritual seed of Abraham in him.” Denney rejects participation in the sovereignty of Messiah.

⁵⁸ Cf. the note on the expression τὸν ἐχ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ in 3:26.

⁵⁹ χενόω is confined to Paul in the New Testament (five times, here only in Romans). The perfect tense points to a permanent voiding of faith.

⁶⁰ The verb is χαταργέω; see the note on 3:3.

⁶¹ This is the third consecutive verse which is linked to its predecessor by γάρ; Paul is following a logical train of thought.

⁶² Turner notes this as one of very few instances where a dependent clause introduced by οὗ precedes the main clause; in Paul this occurs again in 5:20, cf. 9:26 (M, III, p. 344).

⁶³ παράβασις. “In the NT the word denotes ‘sin in its relation to law, i.e., to a requirement or obligation which is legally valid or has legal force’ ” (J. Schneider, TDNT, V, p. 739; the quotation is from Cremer-Kögel, Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch, 183).

⁶⁴ The language is very compressed; Paul simply says “on account of this, of faith, that by grace”. He highlights the important words and leaves out what can be understood.

⁶⁵ Cf. Denney, “because of the nature of law, and its inability to work anything but wrath.” Cranfield takes it with what follows: “For this reason … , namely, in order that”.

⁶⁶ ἵνα indicates purpose. Grace was always God’s plan; it was no afterthought.

⁶⁷ χατὰ χάριν, “according to grace”, is found in v. 4, and with the article in 12:6; 1 Cor. 3:10; and 2 Thess. 1:12. It is thus a Pauline turn of expression, though not a common one. It signifies “by way of grace”, “freely”.

⁶⁸ This time, as in v. 11, the expression is εἰς τὸ εἶναι.

⁶⁹ A. Deissmann has shown that βέβαιος and its cognates are used of legally guaranteed security (Bible Studies [Edinburgh, 1901], pp. 104–9). Cf. also MM; H. Schlier, TDNT, I, pp. 600–3.

⁷⁰ For οὐ... μόνον see the note on v. 12.

⁷¹ ἀλλὰ χαί.

Calvin John Calvin: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh, 1961)

⁷² The Greek is not straightforward, there being an attraction of the relative into the case of the antecedent, together with the omission or displacement of the antecedent: χατέναντι οὗ = χατέναντι θεοῦ ᾧ. Moule sees the omission of the antecedent as “common enough” and “where necessary, the relevant noun is then placed after the relative pronoun”; he cites Matt. 7:2; Rom. 2:16; 16:12 (IBNTG, p. 130). Some take the Greek as equivalent to χατέναντι θεοῦ χατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν. This is less probable (cf. Lightfoot), but the sense will be much the same.

⁷³ Cf. the second of the Eighteen Benedictions: “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who quickenest the dead.” Cf. also 2 Cor. 1:9.

⁷⁴ K. L. Schmidt regards χαλέω as “a technical term for the process of salvation” (TDNT, III, p. 489). Philo speaks of creation and goes on, τὰ γὰρ μὴ ὄντα ἐχάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι (De spec. leg. iv.187).

⁷⁵ RSV has “calls into existence the things that do not exist”, and this is favored by Cranfield, Earle, and others. The difficulty with this interpretation is ὡς ὄντα, which is not a natural way of saying “into existence” (though ὡς can be used “of an actual quality”; BAGD III.1). Murray argues from “calleth the things that are not as being” to the meaning “the things determined by God to come to pass but which have not yet been fulfilled.”

^a 18 Gen. 15:5

⁷⁶ ἐλπίς occurs 53 times in the New Testament, of which no less than 36 are in Paul. Romans has the word most often, 13 times, the next highest being Acts with eight. Paul also has the verb ἐλπίζω most often, 19 times out of 31.

⁷⁷ Bultmann can say, “Christian hope rests on the divine act of salvation accomplished in Christ, and, since this is eschatological, hope itself is an eschatological blessing, i.e., now is the time when we may have confidence” (TDNT, II, p. 532). He also draws attention to some striking Old Testament passages in which God is said to give hope rather than help, such as Jer. 29:11; 31:17; Hos. 2:17 (2:15, NIV) (ibid., p. 523 n. 34). The point is that the faithful have confidence because they know God, not because they know what God will do.

⁷⁸ παρʼ ἐλπίδα = “beside hope”. But Abraham believed ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι, “on the basis of hope”. Cranfield points out that this may be taken either in the sense “beyond hope” (i.e., “human hope’s utmost limit has already been reached and passed”), or, as he prefers, “against hope” (“Abraham’s believing ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι is a defiance of all human calculations”). Cf. Theodoret, “By ‘against hope’ he means hope that is consonant with human nature; but ‘in hope’ refers to the promise of God” (Commentary, p. 70). So Chrysostom, “against man’s hope, in hope which is of God”. There are two different hopes here: a human hope (which failed) and a God-given hope (which did not).

⁷⁹ Cf. Bultmann, “where we can no longer count on controllable factors, we have to trust in the divine future” (TDNT, II, p. 531).

⁸⁰ Cf. Barth, “We are able to hear his ‘Yes’, whilst the world above and below him cries out to him—‘No’.”

⁸¹ For εἰς τό + infinitive see the note on 1:20. In Paul it mostly denotes purpose, and many take it in that sense here. If it is purpose it can scarcely be the purpose of Abraham. Paul is surely not saying that Abraham believed “in order that” he might secure the blessing; that would be a very selfish faith and most unlike the Abraham depicted in Genesis; it must be the purpose of God (so Shedd, Denney, etc.). But Paul is not saying that God did anything εἰς τό.… It was Abraham who believed εἰς τό.… It is grammatically possible to take the construction as giving the content of Abraham’s belief (as Bultmann, TDNT, VI, p. 206; Boylan, and others). But a difficulty in the way of this view is that no example of the construction appears to be cited. It seems, then, that it is best to take it as expressing result. Abraham believed and the result was… (so Lagrange, Lenski, etc.).

⁸² But not with the usual Pauline formula. He introduces the quotation with χατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον (which occurs in Luke 2:24; cf. Acts 2:16; 13:40). Paul uses other tenses of this verb in citing Scripture (as in 9:12; cf. 9:26).

⁸³ οὕτως is an adverb used as an adjective (BDF 434[1]).

⁸⁴ Paul uses ἀσθενέω 16 times in all (out of 33 in the New Testament). The word denotes bodily sickness and the like, but it comes to be used of weakness of any kind. In respect of faith Abraham was not weak. Some grammarians give complicated reasons for the use of μή rather than οὐ, but the case seems covered by the general New Testament rule that μή is the negative with participles. Cf. Moule, “The negative with a participle is usually μή, no matter how factual or confident the denial may be” (IBNTG, p. 105; he notes that οὐ is used with a participle about 20 times in the New Testament).

⁸⁵ The positive is supported by א A B C 81 1739 vg syr^p cop, the negative by D G K P Ψ 33 Byz. Metzger agrees that both give a good sense but favors the positive.

⁸⁶ σῶμα is a definitely Pauline word, occurring 91 times in the apostle’s writings out of a New Testament total of 142 (13 in Romans). It is used in a variety of senses, but here plainly of the physical body.

⁸⁷ The MS evidence seems to favor including ἤδη (א A C D^gr K P Ψ etc.), but to Metzger’s committee the words seems to show some “heightening of the account.” It is also hard to find a reason for omitting it if it were original. The committee was divided and in the end put the word in square brackets.

⁸⁸ This is emphasized by the use of the perfect participle νενεχρωμένον.

⁸⁹ When used of numbers the enclitic πού, “anywhere”, “somewhere”, means “about”, “approximately” (here only in Paul, four times in the New Testament); it is said to be distinguished from ποῦ, “where” (ten times in Paul, 47 times in the New Testament).

⁹⁰ νεχρόω (only here in Romans; once each in Colossians and Hebrews) means “put to death”, but BAGD cite it in the passive with the meaning “be worn out, impotent, as good as dead”. This meaning is not given in LSJ, but MM cite a parallel. It is used again for this same situation in Heb. 11:12.

⁹¹ νέχρωσις is found only here in Romans, and again in the New Testament only in 2 Cor. 4:10, with a variant reading at Mark 3:5. It signifies putting to death, and so deadness. GT cites Galen for its use of a dead state, “utter sluggishness (of bodily members and organs)”. μήτρα is found in the New Testament only in Luke 2:23 and here.

⁹² δέ is adversative; Abraham took note of the difficulties but did not waver.

⁹³ διαχρίνω has meanings like “judge”, “separate”, “dispute”, and apparently from this last “be at odds with oneself”, “doubt”, “waver”, a meaning which appears first in the New Testament (BAGD; F. Büchsel, TDNT, III, p. 947), but which is surely plain in the present passage. εἰς before τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν is perhaps unexpected after this verb. It is apparently BAGD’s 5: “to denote reference to a person or thing for, to, with respect or reference to”, a meaning it has in 16:19. NIV, he did not waver … regarding the promise is the sense of it.

⁹⁴ Turner sees this as a dative of cause and calls it “extraordinary” (M, III, p. 242).

⁹⁵ There is a good deal of Pauline vocabulary here. ἀπιστία is found five times in Paul (four in Romans) out of 11 in the New Testament; ἐνδυναμόω six out of seven; δίδωμι 72 times out of 416 (only John with 76 has more); δόξα 77 out of 165.

⁹⁶ πληροφορέω is found in Paul in five of its six New Testament occurrences.

BAGD Walter Bauer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and aug. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from the 5th edn. (Chicago, 1979)

⁹⁷ This verse is the subject of an article by William Neil, “God’s Promises are Sure—Romans iv.21” (ET, LXIX [1957–58], pp. 146–48). He says, “We may feel that Paul’s argument in this chapter of Romans smacks at times of the rabbinical schools, but unless we can share his insight into the essential kinship of Abraham with ourselves, it is difficult to see how the Old Testament can become anything more than a treasure house of sacred song and religious inspiration” (p. 148).

⁹⁸ For διό see the note on 1:24. It is followed by χαί in many MSS, such as א A C D Ψ, though not found in B D* F G etc. If it be read, it will signify “that the inference is self-evident” (BAGD).

⁹⁹ Paul points up the contrast with ἀλλὰ χαί. διʼ ἡμᾶς will mean “on our account”.

¹⁰⁰ BAGD speak of μέλλω as “denoting an action that necessarily follows a divine decree is destined, must, will certainly” (1.c.δ). They also point out that the verb is rarely followed by the future or aorist infinitive, but 84 times by the present infinitive. It is possible to take μέλλει here as emphasizing the certainty rather than as indicating the future (cf. Cranfield).

¹⁰¹ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα.… See the note on v. 5. This and v. 5 appear to be Paul’s only uses of πιστεύω ἐπί + accusative of person (elsewhere he has the dative), a construction that occurs elsewhere only in Matt. 27:42; Acts 9:42; 11:17; 16:31; 22:19. There will possibly be something more dynamic about it than the dative, together with the thought of faith on the basis of, as resting on. Moule thinks it “possibly retains a sense of movement, metaphorically” (IBNTG, p. 49).

¹⁰² The verb is used in LXX in Isa. 53:6, χύριος παρέδωχεν αὐτὸν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν, and twice in Isa. 53:12, παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ... διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη.

¹⁰³ The “delivering over” of Jesus may be viewed from any one of a number of angles. As here, the verb may be used generally: Jesus was “delivered over” (Matt. 17:22). Again, Judas delivered him over (Mark 3:19), as did the high priests and people (John 18:35), the Jerusalemites (Acts 3:13), and Pilate (John 19:16). From another point of view God delivered him over (Rom. 8:32), and in a very moving statement Paul refers to Christ “who loved me and gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20).

¹⁰⁴ The word διά generally has a causative sense when used with the accusative, as here. A. Oepke sees it as generally denoting “ ‘for the sake of’ with a certain final element” (TDNT, II, p. 70).

NEB The New English Bible

¹⁰⁵ It is also true that in v. 23 διά + accusative looks back to Abraham; in v. 24 the same construction looks forward to “us”.

↑ Back to top